About your Search

20120926
20121004
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
is that the obama administration has declined to defend the defense of marriage act. and governor romney may well decide that he would defend the constitutionality of that statute could but it does not seem that that kind of social conservative question has a lot of salience in something like a presidential debate. so other than health care, i do not see much happening. >> i think it will not happen. and here's why. no major national political figure has attacked affirmative action publicly since 1996 or before. it isind of remarkable. the republicans who, during the 1990's for a while, we're seeing some sort of political profit attacking affirmative action given the polls don't do it anymore. and the democrats, john kerry coming nearly 1990's, joe lieberman in the early 1990's and others, said maybe this time to stop these racial preferences. the democratic leadership council was inching down that road. but that has all gone. i have spoken with republican politicians. why is that? and the answer was that we get so demonized if we ever raise our voices against affirmative action. it is just not w
in this country. those are issues the obama administration has focused on for fixing failing schools. he has a laser focus on effectiveness in teaching and how to improve our teacher work force. the romney campaign has expressed interest in improving the schools through a different avenue by promoting more choice for parents. neither side is recognizing that those reforms if ever put in place will be far less successful if children are not giving the solid foundation in the first place. children growing up in the impoverished conditions have little access to the education that they need in those younger years. those reforms would not go anywhere. we need to get serious about the problem we are talking about today. schools need to teach those basic skills, but we really need our children in environments where there are focused on innovative thinking, flexible thinking, deeper knowledge in multiples subject matters. smarter, a far better use of our public funds of thinking of them as education dollars? are investments a country in, wouldn't it be smarter to use those investments to be from loa
taxes, but you know what the gdp growth was during the end of the bush administration? >> i do not. >> i did not either. >> compare job growth under president obama and under bush. the 4.6 million private sector jobs that have been created is already more than were created under george sorus. you have a president who basically inherited one of the worst economies this country has ever seen, and what are you going to do with a falling object? that object is going to fall, and you are going to have to take it up, and the rise is going to be a little bit slower than you have seen, and it has already created more jobs than george w. bush, and it is up for the president to understand. it is not where we wanted to be. this is the time to understand who has a plan for the future, because elections are always about the future. given his record i have more confidence president obama can get that done then governor romney. >> you can see this discussion at 8:00 p.m. eastern. now a look at spending ads from the annenberg policy center. this is 45 minutes. >> i am the editorial communications direct
: mr. burns, why don't you begin by explaining how you think he administration handled libya? guest: let me just say, i've worked for democratic and republican administrations, and i think i.t. is unfair to level such a criticism of the -- president obama. he has been a strong leader in protecting this country, as president bush was, and both presidents since 9/11 have put the security of the american people and homeland security as job number one, as they should. they are both strong in that area, and it is unfair to suggest that president obama has let down our guard. the events in libya were tragic. the responsibility for guarding our embassies and consulates overseas -- we don't have american military protecting our embassies. it is the host country that provides perimeter security rapping out diplomatic establishments. we provide security for foreign embassies in washington, d.c. and consulates in new york city to it could lead us down? in cairo, it was the egyptian government that did not have enough security around pmc, and that is why the crowds went over the walls and a tri
deported more folks -- this administration, they say, has deported more focused than any other. >> well, the bush administration. >> we know that, since 2004, the number of border patrol agents have doubled in this country and that, president obama, he called for an increase to avert 21,000 border patrol agents. since 2007, revenue going toward border security has increased 55%. and we also see, for instance, in terms of mexicans coming to the united states, that is at net zero right now. to suggest that somehow our borders are not secure, if what that means is are they as secure as we would want them to be? we could always make them more secure, right? we could theoretically have zero people ever coming across the border. but the borders are more secure than they ever have been before. >> i guess we could ask if the borders are more secure than they were four years ago. [laughter] issue then there's this of the tone of the debate. i think the fear mongering in the debate. for instance, this issue of folks who are otm, other than mexicans, and know that you and lieutenant governor dewhu
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5